Thank you. Okay, petitioner, just before that, Miss sharply, I know I left you out last time is Miss sharply, still here. I know she's not a party, but okay. And just to that, Miss Filson, can you speak to the master plan at all? Oh, Miss Harper, there we go. Hello. Welcome back.
Thank you. I've been here. Just takes a minute when I click the audio and connect. No problem. Well, I'm sorry, could you restate your question
the master plan?
The master plan, it's consistent with the Master Plan designation of RLM, which is low to medium density residential. The Master Plan designations are not intended to be applied to specific addresses or to instances less than 10 acres, and also the email I email and and, yes, this is more dense than what was intended by the the density that that's indicated in the land use designation of RLM, but it is consistent with the residential character, and it's going To remain a residential so this is consistent with the Master Plan,
okay, thank you very much. I brought that up because I believe the individuals from the community was concerned about that. So, okay, thank you very much. Miss sharply. Thank you. Any questions for Miss sharply, or Filson, don't see any concern. Or ski guys come back. I appreciate that. And can you address the concerns from that you all heard from the community, and I think that's on mute. Can you unmute that? Please? Just double tap, yeah,
better, yep. Thank you. I
and you are for the record again, of Patrick on behalf of the petitioner, leave Council for the applicant. Okay, thank you. Again, we have two setback variances in far variance for area ratio this building two a and 2b. Is the complimentary building to building one building one was approved. Far. Variance was approved at the last hearing on october 14. And this is a complimentary building to that along John arm. We talked a lot in the materials about rebuilding the community. And in the prior case, resident Miss heading. Margaret heading talked about how she's come down this area their apartment buildings all the time and and this building in particular is restoring the the residential Wow, that's the
million dollar so question. Our enemies have been investing for 3040, years in this they're well funded. They have a
here we have building one, and that was approved at the last hearing.
Vision. They have an audience. We are behind the point
seven required, and 1.44 provided. And here we have building two, and 2b point seven required, and and point nine, seven provided. So it's a lesser request than we then we looked at it in building one. And why is that? You know, the planners that we have here in architects can speak better, and I can that this is appropriate for John R you know, we pushed all the density. This whole site was considered one plot, which we can't do it because of the neighborhood. This would be completely appropriate, and we'd have the correct ratios, but we don't have any. And so how do we work a development like this into the fabric of the neighborhood without having to get variances? So it's nearly impossible, as you can see from all the concerned residents, most of the concerns were all the same. The parking we don't need a parking variance. We maximize parking since the last hearing of 2023 and put it down Marion, the alleys. We're not widening the outs. We're actually just rebuilding the alleys. What else do we hear? The invasion of privacy. This is one block off of Woodward the core of our city. I mean, this is an urban area, and to expect a level of privacy where you have a, you know, an eight foot fence with a single family home, an eight foot fence for a single family home, that's just not a reasonable expectation on John R. With that said, as the planners have indicated, this is the appropriate context for a building along John R, it's a it's a nice transition into the single family for. Fabric, and the use is permitted by right, and so is the height. We're not asking for height variance. So we have sufficient parking. We have two minor setbacks, which none of the Presidents really indicated. How those negatively impact them. It was more general comments, and we don't want the building. It's not appropriate. Well, the building permitted by right. The planning department has approved it. City Council's approved it. BC has approved it, subject to your approval, and we have a very small vocal minority that's against it. This is an asset to the community, and it furthers the bigger you know, Mr. Gerst referenced the election for not sure why, but it's well known that we need housing. We need senior housing, and this satisfies those goals. Residents can age in place a beautiful community. And this satisfies that it's also consistent with the zoning ordinance and the master plan. And we ask for your support.
Thank you. Did you have anything else? Mr. Jones, oh, okay, Miss Bowman,
yes relates directly to the privacy issue brought up here. What is the height of the building that is being proposed the height
maybe in feet.
Short answer is, I believe the height of the building is in the area of 50 feet. We will have a very specific answer very shortly, as per our architect. But I also do want to point out board member Bowman that there is no height restriction in our three I also do want to point out that, again, as your reference in the rendering here, what we have proposed is a transitional typology that, again, is appropriate for, as per the planning department, for this geography And for this neighborhood. Again, that transition is in response, direct response to the AT and T structure, which is directly across the street, which is 10 stories or more, and is significantly occupied one of the last point I do want to raise, again, it being transformed or transfer, a transitional typology. Last point is that the point was raised that AT and T is vacant, what I can promise you about the city of Detroit is that it will not be and that it will continue to be redevelopment. We will continue to see change. Our intention is to support this neighborhood and to support the change, but do so mindfully as we try and develop this site. And the answer to your question, it's,
it's the same height as building one that was approved last hearing, 44 feet, its highest point, and it steps down to 34 feet.
Okay, 44 feet. And what's the linear distance? Now, just to be, I believe Mr. Gersh is property? Is that? 246, 252, Smith? Is that correct?
I can either confirm nor we do not have information on exact which properties Mr. Garish on, but what we can tell you is that it is not directly adjacent to this site. This site is north of the street from Mr. Gersh property, right? I'm
just trying to get the geometry straight, because there was a reference to not being able to build a fence tall enough, if it's because what I'm looking at right now, what do you know the what is the linear distance from the edge of the building closest to Smith, all the way across to, let's say, the front of 246 Smith?
What? We will have to measure that to respond precisely, but we can certainly say it's over 80 feet over 80 what we can also say very poignantly, is that the building in question is north of Smith Street. The site you are referencing is south of Smith Street by a matter of science. We are in Detroit, and the sun will never be north of this building a southern to cast a southern shadow, if that would no
my concern was not of shadow, but a line of sight. I was going to do some geometry here and see, in fact, how high offense would have to be to block a view. But I guess I need to ask, when I have a chance to ask Mr. Gersh again for that address, because it looks to me like there's a house, not a wall, not needed,
because there's looks like the house is next to the case we had last the last time on, I believe 1014 that's a senior building with the parking lot, and then there's a greenhouse and several houses next to that, right?
I'm assuming his house was the one that you. Since the lot three, and
that is correct, but this is, this is on the opposite side of the block. Yeah, I understand this case today on opposite. Yeah.
I'm looking at the address on my google maps here. So I'm just looking to see, I don't really, I guess I'm not seeing actually, the problem that was presented to me. So I'm just asking to make sure I see that.
Mr. Chair, Okay, before we do that, you need a further clarifying.
Come along later, because I would pose the question to Mr. Gerch, okay,
Gordon Watson,
the proposed projects. How many addresses of the proposed site,
but John R, how many address people we find you ready to know
for the case and reference there are,
how many fronts
John R, and how many addresses?
Yes, sir. So, so let me, let me address that. Make sure I understand, making sure I address your question. This is, this is John R, yes. And we have two buildings that front John R, right. And do we have addresses on John R? The addresses have yet to be determined. I want to be very transparent. We won't get addresses until the USPS delivers them. Post, main entrance. Oh, main entrance, yes, sir. The main entrance for both of these structures is at the Coronavirus John R and Smith facing Smith Street. And how many on Smith Street entrance, the entire balance there's 1233, additional sites that face Smith Street. None of those will have what we'll have referred to as a main entrance. All of those have individual stoop based, porch based entrances to the
individual apartments, and those look like townhouses. Those are two story flat style apartments, yes, yeah. Townhouse style apartments, two story. You said these
are two story structures, yeah.
Portman, Watson, I'm not sure if that helps you out. Okay. Any further questions for the petitioners, c4 or not,
and those townhouses, I know it's we're talking about, but just out of curiosity, those townhouses
have parking.
Yes, ma'am, each one of those individual sites will have its own parking, as you have heard over the courses here, each site, for example, will have allocated parking directly and adjacent to this site.
Any further questions for the petitioner? Thank you, Mr. Markham,
if I could just clarify, no, there was a question distance from the front of the building on Smith Street, Smith Street to the home on the other side of Smith Street that distances over 75 feet. So just to clarify, okay,
thank you. All right, just point in time, let's have a board member only discussion. No. Ma'am, no. Ma'am, no. Ma'am, nope. We're closing that out. Yes, we can the next one. Okay, let's have a board rolling discussion. And the most is always encouraged from a board member. Discuss some points. Board member Roberts,
easy, eight case, 33 dash, 23 buildings to a and building to be located at 20325926727177, Smith Street, I make a motion that we approve the requested variances for front yard, set back maximum, maximum floor area ratio and side yard setback. Having met the approval criteria of 50, dash four, dash 121,
it's
been moving properly. Second. Any questions, any under eddies? Um, yes, I have, okay, we're in a moment. Yeah, I had more questions to ask before I can make a decision. Um, we're done with the discussion point in the questions, we're ready for motion and emotions already on the floor. It's been moving properly. Second, I recognize the unreadiness, but we're at the move on. Okay? It's been moving properly. Second, all in favor. Indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any nays
nay aye on the basis of having inadequate information.
Thank you very much. One nay director Brown v
Za, that's a eight to one. VCA case, 33 dash, 23 Ronald McDonald requested multiple dimensional variances for the proposed development construction of two multi family buildings. Has been granted. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you. Director Brown. I think we can plow through this last matter, this next matter in director Brown,
VCA, case, 34 dash, 23 building seven a and 7b Hold on one second.
Director Brown, for the rest of the board, I know we've been here all day. It's approaching two o'clock. It's actually 130 if you all want to take a break individually to like a restaurant break, feel free. But I think we can plow through this one. I think now.
Okay, Director Brown, BCA,
case, 34 dash, 23 building seven, a and 7b BCA, petitioner, Ronald McDonald, city council district number five, the location 501511519525529535545555,
and 561, East Bethune, between bovid and Saint Antoine and our three district, low density residential district, Ronald McDonald request dimensional variances for the development of two buildings, seven a and 7b with seven a containing 14 multiple family units and 7b containing 10 family multiple family units. And in our three low end city residential district, we will now hear from inspector field boy,
Thank you, Director. We're here in this case today because the Board shall be authorized to hear dimensional variance request for matters that are beyond the scope of the building department's 10% administrative adjustments for various of minimum setbacks. The variances needed are for building seven, 814, units deficient front setback building 7b 10 units deficient front setback for building seven a, deficient recreational space requirement and building 7b deficient recreational space. Here in his section, his case under Section 54 131, six, permanent dimensional variances and 54 121, the approval criteria here, in this case, under the legal description attached, our attorney will assess ownership the BC site plan review comments generated on June 23 2023 states, the current legal use of 501, 519-520-5529, 535-540-5555, and 561, East Bethune is vacant land the current legal use of 511 East Bethune is a barber shop with upper dwelling unit under permit 58368, issued in August of 1955 the development consists of two buildings, seven a and 7b with seven eight containing 14 Multiple family units and 7b containing 10 multiple family units. All of the parcels are zoned r3 the proposed use of multi family dwellings is permitted by right in our three zoning district. However, as more than 12 dwelling units are being constructed, 24, total under Section 5014 113, Site Plan Review is required prior to issuance of a building permit under Section 5014, 34 household living as a development is within a half mile of bus route West Grand Boulevard. 18 off street park spaces are required. 22 are proposed, which fulfills the parking requirement. After reviewing the site plans, they meet the requirements of the ordinance and have been approved with the following conditions. Building seven, eight again, which is 14 units has deficient. Front setback, 20 feet required 13 proposed seven feet deficient recreational space required 14 125 square feet are required. None. Proposed Building 7b which is 10 units deficient. Front setback, 20 feet required 12 feet proposed eight feet deficient recreational space, 985 square feet required. None proposed petition again is before the board for dimensional variances for building seven a and 7b in our three district. These properties are located again on East Bethune Street, between Bobby and a saint, Saint Antoine, which is closer to Fauci is the view looking to the West. This is a view of subject property off, right off of faubia. This building is also part of this and vacant land on the opposite side of that long view looking down Thune Street. This block opposite the intersection of Bethune and bovid Street. Do, looking down bovid looking to the north block opposite is the park. Has been spoken on. Been various cases, view of the west side of the property off of both corner Bethune, long view looking down the front of the other property, looking to the east view down Beaubien, looking to the south view looking down Bethune street, looking to the west. And that completes the visuals again. There are two various needed for each building, deficient front setback and recreational space. That concludes the visuals. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Ronald K McDonald, 6925 Oakland Mills, Boulevard, Columbia, Maryland.
Thank you very much. Attorney demos, thank
you, Chairperson. Thomas, good afternoon again to the board and to the public. Jonathan, tomorrow, City of Detroit, law department. Law Department is satisfied with Mr. McDuff standing to proceed with board based on the statements made previously and the related standing for the authorized parties that were identified at today's first hearing. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Donna McDonough, you have the floor. Yes, we
are here requesting dimensional variances for site number seven. Mr.
DeMarco, can you state your name and address for the record.
Tricia DeMarco, 170, kielson, drive right. Michigan, 48215, all right. Regarding building four, seven, a and 7b site seven, there are three dimensional variances being required. Front set back requirement, where 20 feet are required and 12.6 are being provided due to context along the adjacent blocks. I also want to note rear setback which was not noted in the initial B seed recommendation for variance which is being requested here today. Rear setback being provided is 11.1 feet, given that this is adjacent to the alley. Were over, you know, 31 feet from from the other side of the alley, and then recreational space, where we have 650 square feet of recreational space, and 684 square feet of recreational space being provided that is greater than what you saw in the previous package, we have been able to provide additional recreational space within these two buildings. So we've alleviated that there is now, in total, 1334 square feet of recreational space provided, and 2561 required. And just a reminder that overall, within the district, we're well over the recreational space requirement, at over 146% of what would be required for the development overall.
Hold on one second. How much is being provided?
Sure, yeah,
how much is being provided again.
So for recreational space, 650 square feet and 684 square feet are being provided on the two buildings respectively. Okay, so a total of 1334 square feet are being provided between the two. The requirement between the two is 2561 and again, as a reminder, within the overall development, 17,911 square feet are being required, but 25,390 are being provided, so almost one and a half times the required amount, and that is recreational space, much of which will be available. You know, inter interchangeably between these sites.
Okay? Oh, former now, can
you provide more information about what your recreational space will include?
Yeah, so some of that recreational space includes balconies, and then I know we went through in some of the pre previous presentations, some of the more neighborhood scale recreational space, including dog parks and kind of open space as well.
So in this case, can you point to the recreational space in question? Yeah.
Much of the recreational space here is, is in balcony, which is allowable through the recreational space count, so I wouldn't be visible here. Maybe the rendering, it's difficult to see.
Slide number 20, you will be able to see the interior design of the recreational spaces at the site that include both outdoor space, outdoor lawn as well as outdoor sitting room. And again, as a simple reminder, we are also generally directly adjacent to a full city park in the form of Dolores.
Say that again.
I say it again. The site is also contextually designed directly adjacent to Dolores Bennet Park. So now we are providing 25,000 square feet of recreational space in addition to not including the park that is the natural recreational space as well,
because next door to it across the
street, yeah, yeah, I
see it now, and I'm looking at slide number 19 with the whole view.
Okay, you can proceed now.
So that's the end of the overviews of the variances being requested, unless there any further questions.
Okay? And just to help us out, all out here, I see the far west are the two largest structure, and the Far East I'm taking it is the project in question, Bobby and phobian And
yeah, so if you're looking, if you're looking at this, the slide on the screen right now, yeah, this is the development To the right of Laura Bennett Park.
Various yep, I
Yeah, is that swimming pool part of the Bennett park, or is that? No,
I think that's a tennis court, isn't it basketball court? Yeah, I think it's the existing basketball court that's Bennett Park. The Lord, yeah, okay, and the project is just right to our right anyway, of the park.
Now, where's your recreation
and outdoor explain one. But again, I know you explain where the recreation at within this view here, I believe you say you
first seven a and 7b the recreational space is provided through balconies, yeah. And then the you mean within the overall development,
no, just this one in question, okay,
board member, hold on, hold on. One second or not, you got to use your mic.
Thank you. Sorry. I thought he said something about outdoor seating. You said something
outdoor seating. There's also outdoor seating that that is provided within the development, but it's not at this specific site. Okay, got it.
Thank you. Now, now with that being stated, where will it be provided part of the whole project,
so there's quite a bit of recreational space focused here, which you can see is just on the other side of Dolores Bennett Park, also along Bethune. And then quite a bit of recreational space here, which is on Smith Street, on the other side of Dolores Bennet Park. And then there are also pockets over this direction as well. Okay,
thank you for not any further questions. Okay, thank you very much. Mr. Marco, can you conclude that's all okay? Thank you very much. All right, at this point in time, let's go to our departments, building and safety. Miss sharply, mean she was, Miss Filson, you've
been here too. Um,
good afternoon. Board members, once again. Jada Filton, representing the building department, yes, um, we did, uh, do the site plan review letter for this case on June 23 2023 and we determined that there was deficiencies for the front side and rear setbacks, um, but what has been noted is the and also the recreational space is also deficient,
okay, and from your records, how much is it deficient? By?
Um, it was. Was, it was we had come up with they needed 2300 square feet of recreational space, and they are only providing the 1334
Okay. Thank you very much. And just to follow up with that one, they're including in their setback, well, in their their request, the balcony spaces. That is sufficient.
I take it. No, that's that's sufficient. We include the balcony space. Thank
you very much. Thank you. Okay. Any questions for Ms Filson for building a safety from the board former involvement. Thank you very much. All right. Miss sharply planning development,
yes. Thank you. Helen sharply planning and development, we didn't do a review or provide a report for this case, because it's by it's by right, and they did site plan review and BC, okay,
I just need you to the reason why you called you actually, is the first question is 54, 121, is always geared towards the master plan. Can you speak to that? Yes,
the Master Plan designation is RLM, or low to medium density residential. And though the project is more dense than the Master Plan intends, it is not. It is a general land use, and it is not intended to be applied to addresses or precise boundaries or blocks of property lines, and in general, it is consistent with the master plan because it is residential in nature and won't change the residential nature of the character or the character of that neighborhood.
Thank you. Miss rapidly. Any questions from Ms sharpley, from the board All right, hearing none. CNN, let's go to the questions. Let's go to 54 121, starting with board member weed, the first two questions please,
right?
I'm sorry. Mr. McDonough, thanks. You know the routine. Yes, sir. I think you've been here. Thank you very much. All right, board
member, we first question is, is to What is your thought on why the administrative adjustment that you want is consistent with the Master
Plan? Yes, sir, requested variance is consistent with the Master Plan. The neighborhood and housing goals for the middle Woodward district are reinforcing sound neighborhoods, revitalizing neighborhoods with poor housing conditions, and increasing residential density. This project accomplishes all of those goals. Thank you.
The next issue is to have you determine what are the practical difficulties that prevent you from carrying out the strict letter of the ordinance?
They are the original plotting of the parcels done in the early 1900s is in direct opposition to the current zoning for the artery zone, the current zoning code. And the original plotting of these parcels is in direct opposition with the current vision. Density, walkability and community development are the aim set forth for the city's current vision. This corner parcel on a significant thoroughfare needs full depth development facing the park inside corner. This quality design movement is not contemplated by our zoning code.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
If we grant the variance, what will it do for your development and the site where it is being built?
It will alleviate the tension between the current zoning code the existing parcels in our city core and the relevant stakeholders preferred vision for density and walkability, it will eliminate the practical difficulty of complying with the strict setback that does not contemplate its context, which will allow the project to proceed as proposed and approved by The land bank and city council, the Brownfield authority and AC, it will eliminate the practical difficulty of achieving quality urban design at these corner parcels that is not contemplated by our zoning code.
Okay, please explain how your development will not fall cause any adverse impact on the other homes around you.
This project will not have an inverse impact. It will return blighted and fallow property to productive use. Will add new residents to the northeast neighborhood, and it will contribute property taxes and income taxes to the city of Detroit. Its general fund.
My apologies for me. More. Next two questions, please, if
there are any impacts, how
will you deal with them?
The project providing setbacks that are contextual and designed to the existing structure precedents. The setbacks is are appropriate in both neighborhood scale and design. The recreational spaces will support the needs of the residents. Density and walkability encourages the residents to utilize the nearby public amenities, and if any issues arise, we will work directly with the community to address them. What is special about the site that's different from the others throughout here. This is a case where the strict dimensional standards set forth in Detroit zoning ordinance have not been updated to reflect the development of diverse housing types called for in the city of Detroit master plan. The unusual aspect of this site and its diminutive planning inside of a neighborhood. These are collections of uniquely small parcels that are not shared land owners in general, land owners are not generally corner parcels on significant thoroughfares facing municipal parks.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
McDonald, when you purchased the property, what were your plans?
We have not taken any negative actions in regards to the project. To the contrary, we have entered into agreements with the City Council Detroit brownfield authority, and we have a standing development agreement with the Land Bank Authority to develop the site and return it to productive use. This unto itself, is a significant positive action.
And will you be conducting any business other than what you have spoken on today on record? No,
sir, we are proposing a by right development that is in accordance with the zoning uses within the r3 District. Thank you
for Roberts,
how will your request today benefit the neighborhood?
Substantial justice will be delivered by allowing us to move forward with the development that will return a blighted and fallow property to productive use Add new residents to the north end neighborhood and contribute to the City of Detroit's general fund via payment of property taxes, as well as improving the experience of all residents who utilize Dolores Bennet Park, substantial justice will also be delivered By reaffirming the decision originally delivered by this board,
and there's this city owned property.
This is not city owned property. These are actually all. There is an assembly of city owned property as well as private lots that we've assembled as the developer, the requested variance is not in conflict, but rather necessity in order to comply with the terms of the sale and development agreement, I mean, mandated by the Land Bank Authority and enforced by the city Detroit City Council. Thank you.
Any further questions from the board for the petitioner from the board for Watson board member Bowman, former Sherman, term is no longer here. Okay? Thank you very much.
Thank you. All right,
any other board members? Any other questions? All right, hearing none, seeing none. Let's go to our community testimonials. If you have a community testimony or present today, please come down to the podium. If you have a community testimony on your present today, please come down to the podium one last time. If you have a community testimonial and you're present today, please come down to the podium. I do see one person state your name and address for the record, ma'am. Olivia
krumpers, 240, Chandler Street, right? I will simply read the requirements for approving these variances. The answer to all of these questions must be yes in order to approve variances. Are the variances requested consistent with the master plan? In this case, no, unless you look at the whole development as a whole, but since we're reviewing these separately, I don't believe that's fair. Are the variances requested consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? Overwhelmingly, no, do the variances requested ensure adequate light, air, privacy, safety and convenience of access to buildings, structures and land. No, it does not do the variances requested conserve or enhance property values. No, do the variances requested protect all areas of the city from harmful encroachment by incompatible uses? No, I.
The Park can get very congested, very congested, and it's and I just want to let you know, as a bicycle rider, I was hit by a car in December of 2023 that was at night. The business that relocated had the views blocked, and so the car did not see me, but sure hit me, and I went flying, and I'm still suffer from that. So I you know, you may have come by, but you should come by when the park is like Full Tilt Boogie, which happens definitely in the summer. As I say to people, I'm half a block away from the park, I I got a free DJ in my backyard. I don't need to play music. I get to hear from it from the park. So in terms of the congestion, I'm wondering who's going to want to live there? I don't know if Wayne State students will want to live there, because it gets really loud, so excuse me.
So again, I have to look at this, because we never received any community engagement about what the actual variances are. And once again, the event they had at the park, July 4, 2024 there was a flyer put out. I didn't get one, and Miss Cockrell does know my telephone number and my email address. So for the East Bethune, front, setback, side. Setback, recreational setback, again, you know, the reason I bought a house is I wanted to have a yard. I wanted to have for my animals, whom I'm afraid of. They travel around the neighborhood. They're very likely going to get hit with this excessive density. So and as the fun setbacks and the side setbacks, the recreational setbacks, the recreational setback. You know, I'm just wondering what's going to happen in the park. Sometimes I almost think that this development is a plan designed to keep certain people out of the park, because when the construction happens, they'll be all around the park it sounds like and I think some regulars may be a little upset. I don't even think they know what's going on, because people come from other parts of the city. They're not just North and residents now, I would also like to show that I don't think the developers are in compliance with their plans. I have photos here. This is the back of 515 East Bethune. It's collapsing in the back. It's open to trespass. There are windows that are not boarded up. The land bank will go after someone if you've got a building like this. I also have not seen a vacant building certificate on this one or 296 Smith, which had a squatter on it this summer. And before they approved the Brownfield, I believe it was, there was also a squatter inside, and I lived right there now. So here, and I'll give these now, there's, there's also debris back here. They haven't had to clear. This is an alley shot. I had some others, but I didn't. I was scrambling to get them. So I think I have enough copies for everyone. We can put that in the record. Or I brought extra copies so that you could pass them on. You could all see the, excuse me, that building there. And so again, I just think that the I wish they could have saved the building I love his, just when they could save history and again. So my specific concern for this location is how it fits into the overall density. But that and this overall parking and density would be a problem for me as a bike rider, as I've already been hit by a car, especially at night, when there are lots of cars and lots of the vehicle drivers are not looking for bicycle people. Thank you, ma'am, and I object to the time limit, once again, this is not what due process supposed to be about a one size fits all. Thank you. Thank
you. Ma'am, okay, do we do have a quick question for you? Ma'am, can you come back for
a moment?
Yeah,
I heard quite a lot about some blight issues and about this building that you're discussing. Could you please tell me, is this connected to either residential space or the setback regarding the particular properties on this particular case?
Well, one of the conditions is that they comply with their agreements. One of the conditions for a variance is they comply with their agreements, and they're supposed to be up to code, this, that and the other thing, and they didn't get a vacant building certificate, and I saw a land bank surveyor coming through. The neighborhood, but this developer is getting preferential treatment from the city because I saw the land bank surveyor coming through when they were trying to hit other people up for not having, you know, for having vacant buildings. And then when I told one of the land bank persons that there was somebody squatting at 296 Smith, this was in the spring or summer, and the land bank guy told me to call the police. That's not my job. They're the ones that are supposed to be overseeing that development, but, I guess. But so they, even though they're going to demolish it and they're, they're supposed to have a bigger building certificate, and it's open to trespass in the back, less than half a block from Dolores Bennett playground.
Thank you. Okay,
and it has been that way since even last year. Thank you. I saw it with my own eyes, and I've seen it recently. These photos are fairly recently, but they would I've got other older photos in my phones from previous they've never sealed it up.
Thank you very much. Next person you state your name and address for the record, sir Tyson Gersh, 252254246,
Smith Street, also acting as an authorized agent of the north and landing impact community Inc, the Michigan Urban Farming Initiative, polycraft LLC, which is now in good standing because I just updated the one filing. Sorry, it's $20 fee and the lower north end block club. Thank
you very much. You can proceed five minutes.
I object to the time limit. It is quite literally impossible for me to put all of my claims of protected interests and rights and the special damages associated on the record with this limited amount of time, I've been given a not a meaningful opportunity to be heard whatsoever. Furthermore, I am being disallowed from representing the entities referenced previously, despite my being an authorized agent to do so, this does not comply with due process. Uh, pursuant section 40, I'm sorry. Uh, 50, dash four, dash 193, of the Detroit zoning ordinance, which states testimony and hearings the board of zoning appeals staff report shall be entered into the record. The Board shall allow an opportunity during the hearing for the appellant and any member of the public to offer either written or oral testimony regarding regarding the proposed proposal under consideration. I'm submitting the binder which I submitted in the first case of the day, which contains a 520 page slide deck, important on that page number as evidence to support these testimonials, additional participants who contributed to this document and on whose behalf This is collectively submitted as a form of participation are listed on slide 129 of the slide deck. Again, I object to the time, provided you did make a mistake here that I think, never mind, it's not my job to I believe I won't even make that comment. Somebody else's responsibility, I guess, with this opportunity. Oh so. And again, all of the information about damages and rights and arms are detailed in the slide deck, and the 1000 pages of additional materials that has been submitted to this board several times over the past year. Oh, and also the authorizations that I were discussed in the previous case were submitted as part of my presentation, submitted on october 14. If those were insufficient in any way, I should have been notified. I don't believe they are. And the fact is, I do have that authorization, whether or not I show it to you in this moment, is irrelevant, as long as I can prove it. And it's page three. Slide three, which means Mr. Demers doesn't appear to have looked at any of the materials we submitted. It's not hidden somewhere hard to find. It's page three. It was right. Actually might be page two. No, it's page three. Title Slide, case number slide, my authorization, because it would be the first thing up for me to say, This is my guy given right? I'm entitled to these minutes. Last thing I'm going to say, with my limited amount of time, is, let's see. So I grew up in Ann Arbor. I mean, I've spent 15 years in Detroit. Majority of my adult life. I'm still considered a new Detroiter, although I have been here longer than a lot of people who have spoken, I do think that there is a implicit bias that's not necessarily maliciously made, but we sort of make assumptions about skin color and the credibility for and legitimacy for them to. Speak about the neighborhood. I just wanted to some food for thought. I grew up in Ann Arbor. I would never go back to Ann Arbor and assert my will on the property owners there and say, because I grew up and by the way, my entire neighborhood I grew up in, it's totally gone, eaten up by development, just like this. To tell you, it destroys neighborhoods. It's terrible. There is no semblance of where I am from. It's gone. And by the way, if you want to see what buildings used to be here, they're in the slide deck, and we can just kind of clarify that matter. It doesn't matter what anybody remembers. It's factual. I'm not impacted about what by what happens to Ann Arbor anymore. I have no right to have an opinion. I think it would be sort of considerate if somebody wanted to embrace the history that I participated in as part of the future, but I wouldn't be aggrieved if they didn't. But I could aggrieve Somebody by asserting my will onto them when it doesn't affect me, the people that have to live with the consequences of what happens here are not the people who used to live here. Are not the people who moved away. And that's a lot of this legacy crowd that we speak of. And I mean no disrespect when I say this, anybody in the neighborhood who knows me, who has worked with me for the past 15 years. Know, I spend all my time hearing about the opinions of people who know the history of our community. Look at the slide deck. You'll see quite a bit of history in there that I've spent 15 years collecting. I really care about that stuff. But from a legal perspective, what once was is irrelevant to what will be I my property will be affected by what will be my life, my everyday experience, not the people who moved away again. No disrespect to those people, I'm grateful for their every time I talk to them, I have millions, not millions. I have dozens of recorded interviews. I work with LaDonna, who is considered our neighborhood historian, and somebody I respect tremendously. LaDonna little, I spend all my time on this stuff. It's part of my professional work too, as really architectural work. Yeah, you're right. I'm rambling. I should wrap it up again. I've not had the opportunity to even attempt to detail all of the issues my damages specifically, but just consider whose opinion matters, like when it comes to shaping the future of the neighborhood and who will actually be impacted. Thank
you very much, sir. Okay, we do have a question board member Bowman, yeah, I
this is, um, and I know this, this isn't fair, and you don't feel like answering, that's fine, um, but I know you and Miss Warwick work together, and she already, she's already completed her statement. Um, so I'm wondering if you could just tell me, in your opinion, anyway, what particular part of the approval criteria would be affected by a lack of maintenance to a vacant structure on one of the lots on that block. I'm
sorry, before we do that, this is something. Let's do this. Miss Filson from building a safety Let's ask her the perfect questions, if they are within any violation currently has been reported violence former Watson,
after examination of the photo, three photos provided by Attorney Warren, the structure in question seems to be boarded, first of all, as the only requirement for securing a vacant
building is Filson. Can you address any any violations and any of these addresses here?
No, there's no current violations, as these are vacant it's vacant land.
Thank you very much.
It's not vacant land. Thank you. I can take a stab at answering that.
Pause former Moscow
through the chair to Mr. Gersh, if you can give a I guess, I know we've been here for a while, but if you can give a quick answer, your involvement, as far as I believe was brought up that you were an advocate for more green space,
among other things. Yeah, absolutely.
Can you speak to how did, how did all that pan out? Real quick. I
would love to speak to that our the lower north end, the at that time named the lower north end block club, did attempt to negotiate like work through this. Our block club is possibly one of the most development friendly in the city. We have endorsed 91% of all proposed projects in our community. Jason Jones is one of those people. He's got two structures under construction right now on Horton Street. We endorsed like happily, and it's all rental, by the way, but it's to scale, and we've actually since been forced to retract that endorsement, not because of this, but because he's not been a good steward of those spaces. But we like the idea in theory because it worked. This is actually the only project in the history, in the seven years I've served as secretary of this block club that we have opposed anything actually, this narrative around like, oh, they just hate everything is completely false, to the point that I had to reach out to Sheila Cockrell and and I didn't make a request for a retraction statement, but I did have to say, you know, you keep Saying this, it's gonna like, please stop. It's false. There's a lot of false things being said to defame us in such a way that would influence a decision and have damages, like substantial damages, to us with regard to the actual changes we did. It was lengthy, at least. The work on our end, we pulled a ton of people in the neighborhood, but there was a survey done basically we said, Here's kind of our high our like key issues, the top three were ownership structure. That was the number one issue. It's all rental. To date, they changed less than 5% of the ownership structure of what has been proposed. So what is it like? Eight houses for sale? Although we haven't mentioned any of those, I'm not even sure they're still happening. And then it was lower density, and which was a tie with parking congestion. And then the third was green space. They love to talk about the green space. I know that's a NIMBY thing to complain about. It. Frankly, wasn't even on my radar, although I do think it is important. They then, on their own, made changes based on that initial feedback, and then we were aggressively pressured to, on the spot, say we endorsed it based on those changes. Most of those changes were irrelevant to things. We actually said developers often have a plan A and a plan B, right? Like this is what we think we can get through as a backup. But we're going to shoot for the stars and ask for the moon, and we'll take what we can get.
Did advocate, I'm just green space was one of those things
we did. We did not endorse it. There was a single confusing conversation where our president it's not my business to share or even necessarily comment on, but there was a misunderstanding due to the high pressure tactics that were taken on us, and something was misconstrued, but the pulling from the neighborhood in response to the revised plan overwhelmingly did not support the project and made specific feedback that has not been considered blatantly ignored or just flat out rejected by the developer.
Thank you, Mr. Gerst, no more questions from MS petitioner, I mean, for this neighbor, thank you very much. At this point in time, let's go to our virtual participants. V Stewart, V Stewart, V Stewart, state your name and address. V Stewart, yes, can
you hear me? Oh, yes, we
can't hear you. Miss Stewart, okay.
I My name is Susan Stewart. My address is 290 Chandler street, and I feel that, did you need more information in regards to that, or are we all set? I'd like to make a statement, but did you need any other information regarding No, ma'am, feel free. Okay, all right. I feel that they have not met any of the variances properly, the height and, you know, even my last question was not answered about how they intend to enlarge the alleyways that just went right through and voted it right through. Any alleyway enlargement will encroach upon our properties. And this question was never answered, but it was pushed right through. We're getting a lot of this pushing right through, and the reason we can't have a meaningful conversation is because we feel rushed to answer these questions or to present them to you, and I don't feel that's fair. I object to the way that we're being handled as a as a community. I would like. To see development. I don't like to see a lot of bare spaces, but I do feel that the proposed developments are not being handled properly, and the variances are granted arbitrarily. They're not they're just not within scope. Shared recreational spaces. Now they have a balcony. So people are in an apartment or home or something, they have a balcony. Well, you can't live off of your balcony and the shared recreational spaces. Am I going to walk a block to share a recreational space in the winter? No people are going to come out, use the sidewalks, use the streets. That's going to be their recreational space. So shared creational space is kind of a a misnomer. Once again, I don't feel that any of these things have been met, and I don't feel that the variances should be granted. I oppose, I oppose the, the recreational. I mean, not the recreational, but I oppose the variances that have been requested. I also oppose people not being able to give enough information to the board, and it doesn't seem like the board has even reviewed all of the information that has been sent to them, there's been one or two and in some cases, four or five. But how can you base a decision if you have not realistically reviewed all of the information that just seems improbable. Once again, we do want to welcome people into our community, but we want the right people who are going to stand by what they say, and we've not had that from this developer. We have not been given enough opportunity to review information in a proper fashion, even at this very hearing, the petitioners given hours of time to present when we're given a rushed five minutes. And it feels rather harmful in a way. As Mr. Gersch said, we have to live in this area, and I protest the way this, this has been handled. It's it's just not fair. It's just not fair not to be able to voice a proper opinion or to be given the respect that we should be given. We are taxpayers as well, and they can only hope that people move into these places. We are here now paying taxes. Once again. I think that the BCA should not support the variance request. I do not support that. I have not supported the variance request. And if you had more time for us to present information, or possibly if more people had reviewed the information, they would see some of these issues that are going to come up for people who are residents of this area right now. And I think it's really unfriendly to suggest that people not purchase in this area and not expect to have a four story building built behind them. These, these things are just not fair to the residents.
Thank you very much, ma'am,
you're welcome. Quincy Jones, Quincy
Jones, now. Quincy Jones, yeah. Quincy Jones, they have a right to participate. Ma'am. Ma'am, have a seat. Have a seat. Ma'am,
have a seat. Have a seat. Have
a seat.
Have a seat. Have a seat.
Thank you. Quincy Jones,
yes. My name is Quincy Jones, 405 Chandler Street, Detroit, Michigan, once again, I'm in full support of this. You know the engagement aspect you we've seen the information. We've seen the data. A lot of the opposition chose not to participate in this Iowa small developer on the east side of Detroit, work closely with the city, and I know this board would not approve variance. Has done the due diligence to get this to look at everything so to people to assume that you're not doing what you should be doing. It's really just a sign of disrespect to this body.
It's not a they said it? They either Ma'am,
ma'am. No,
no, no, no.
Thank you. Once again, the handwriting is on the wall, level of disrespect. But once again, this project has done everything that was. Required even doing this, revisiting this project again for the second time. I want development. I want right development. This project is doing that once again. I am small development on the Detroit. We're closely with the city to promote affordable home ownership and affordable rental units with our duplex, and this project, once again, is the best practice, so I'm in full support of it for the variants. And once again, this individuals have had the opportunity to participate, and we'll continue to have the opportunity. I think one of the board members mentioned, once this path that the engagement what happened? Vanguard is represent has been representing the community for over 30 years, and they would do their due diligence to continue the engagement, to ensure that every voice is heard. This is a democracy. No one can twist no one's arm and drag them to a meeting to participate if they choose how to participate. That's on there for whatever decision they have made. But Vanguard Atlanta has made all of the opportunity open for everyone to give their input, for everyone to be a part of this historical I'm in full support of it. My name is Quincy Jones, thank you so much.
Thank you very much. Director Brown,
telephone number ending 6763, they need to be sworn in. 763,
you state your name and address for the record. Amuse yourself please. 763, I'm responsive. Director Brown, okay, Hello, yes, you state your name and address for the record, please.
Ma'am, yes, I do. The address is 250 ma'am, okay,
and hold on, ma'am, hold on. Miss pierpo, please work. Do
you affirm your testimony before the board today is the truth? Yeah,
thank you. You can proceed. Ma'am,
yes, I, you know, I'm just overwhelmed. I cannot believe that my home is being consumed by a project. You know, high building, congested parking. I'm like, I just really, I think I'm dreaming. I cannot believe it. I'm overwhelmed with all of that just the thought of, you know, nobody is just people that are living there. You know, you you put yourself in the position whenever you're doing anything, you always want to see yourself into what you're doing. You know how it appears and how it affects you. And I just can't shake this. It's just not going well. And I, you know, like I said before, I think the project is a great thing, but I just think the location is not right for this project, you know. And I know I'm not wrong about that, and it's just like all this work to put into this little spot to make it work, and it's just going to be terrible. It's just going to have a great effect on the people that are living there. Because I agree, you know, yeah, we need, you know, some more houses and homes for people, yes, but to stick this big thing, I'm sorry, this big project in a small space on top of these houses is just doesn't seem to out of can't see how it's going to work. It's not going to matter to a lot of people that are talking right now, that are here, that are making these decisions because they won't have to live with it. And it's so hard sometimes for you to express what's happening. And a lot of times, you know, people don't see that. They don't want to see the truth. You know, not acknowledging the truth as to what this is, and you you're putting more and more work into this, and it's not getting better. You know what? I mean, you're putting a lot of you have a lot of experience and skilled people that are putting more into the project. But what about the space and surroundings and how it's going to affect everyone and everything? You know, just the park, the park just at the end of the block that's you have to make a special trip to. When you go past that park, it gets jam packed, cars, everything, and I don't even think there's one resident there. So here we go with this project. All these people that are going to that are going to be occupying these homes, have families and friends and parties, I mean, because that's normal, but how is it really going to work in do. With, you know, with, with what's happening. You know, every day I'm thinking about this thing. I'm trying to get my blood pressure down, because this is just like, is it really happening? I can't believe it. I can't believe it. Good idea, but it's but you have to, it's just not the right location. And I'm just being blunt, because that's the only way I know I need
to say, Okay, at this point in time to the petitioner, you come and address some of the concerns from the
community. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of board, Patrick, how? On behalf of the petitioner, keeping the focus here on the variances requested for building seven a and 7b and responding to points made by the residents, we submitted a lengthy brief indicating how we are compliant with the approval criteria in Section 54, 121, will not repeat that on the record and also miss McDonald also miss McDonald went through the approval criteria today, indicating that we satisfy each approval criteria while we while we respect the efforts of the concerned residents of 500 page PowerPoint. You know, Mr. Gersh was not able to indicate in in any way how the rear, front and side yard setback, along with the recreational space variants negatively impact him when he lives two blocks to the west of this subject building. So a lot of this has been a lot of paper, a lot of complaining about opportunity to be heard, and not a lot of substance. So again, we're not here to talk about the appropriateness of development. We're here to talk about the variances in question, and we submit that we meet the approval criteria. Last point I'd like to make, I'd like to thank this board. The board was sent this matter back from Judge Barry with strict instructions to separate the matters in the individual cases and to give the residents an opportunity to be heard. The first hearing on april 21 2023 was about five hours long. The last hearing was about 10 hours long, and right now we're entering our six hour so we went from five hours to 16 hours, almost three times the amount of time everyone was heard. The petitioner didn't object to anything in terms of the amount of time we heard. The petitioner didn't object to any videos coming in, despite the uniqueness of that, the petitioners not objected to any of the written materials coming in. So we've had due process, if I've seen it practicing 20 years, have never participated in a busy day hearing that went this long. I commend this board for giving the community the time your own time to listen to us about this exciting development and and thoughtful of the come to a conclusion and to assert anything to the contrary that the materials weren't reviewed or you didn't sit here and listen to everyone's comment is inappropriate. So thank you for listening. Thank you for the support, and we ask that you support us on this last case, the reason submitted. Thank you very much.
Okay,
you have a closing statement
here? I do. I want to make sure that, again, all the questions were responded to, so I want to go through a couple items specifically. Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Jason Jones. I live at 1187 long film, Detroit, Michigan. Also here on behalf of developer with tech time, development, okay. Uh, apologize. Specifically, there was a question asked the alleys are about the alleys and their expansion. The alleys are not being expanded into private property. This it will not encroach into private property. The alleys are being rebuilt to city standard and return to fully functional use as originally intended. During this hearing, we heard we sent representatives to the vacant structure referenced on Bethune, and it is boarded up and will continue to be boarded up until it is demolished. Specifically, it has been boarded up. It has been violated and vandalized. It has been re boarded we all live in the city of Detroit, and we know that that is an ongoing issue, but this development team certainly will continue to respond to that issue as it arises, and will continue to attempt to maintain the structure as boarded until it is demolished and ultimately built as part of this project. Page 28 of the slide deck clarifies all of the changes we made in response to community requests, including increasing the green space from 5% of the project to 30% of the project. That is, that is a significant change to the project. Additionally, during that time, the unit count was reduced by 10% again, just reiterating you have heard these things over what is been very clearly, 16 hours of testimony and discussion. Lastly, recreational space adjustments are found on slide 29 significant adjustments and deliveries have been made. I do want to recenter the point of this conversation that being this is a hearing for the front side and rear setbacks and recreational space for a buy. Right. Multi fine. Housing project on Bethune Street, not for many of the other points I actually, frankly, just addressed. The simple point is that this is a residential development, and we're here for dimensional variances that are relatively perfunctory. Last point, I do want to thank this body for their work, their sacrifice, your attention and, most importantly, your time. The BCA is difficult, technical and frankly, often time, very thankless. I just want to say today and in previous on behalf of the entire development team, we thank you for your time and your attention. We hope that you will continue to support the project and I will rest. Thank you. All right,
let's have a board member all discussing. Motion always occurs. Board members, former Roberts, you know, Roberts then Bowman, then Knox.
Yeah, I would just like to, you know, reiterate what I said during previous cases, and that is, you know, I stand by our original vote a year ago to improve these variances, and have not heard anything today that would encourage me to change that original
thing. Thank you. Board Member. Bowman,
yeah, this is really a point of information, and we'll have no bearing really on my vote. However, I just don't know where, when else to ask it. And it's because in the Presentation Packet that was provided to us, I believe it was by Mr. Gersh, the there's a, effectively, a PowerPoint in Google Form available here. And there's citing BCA rule of procedure 305, record. And in that it describes the requirement of proceedings that give include verbatim testimony in minutes, and I'm wondering how that pertains to us. And because I when I do look at our minutes, I don't see that. What I see is basically a statement of outcomes. And I assumed that was all that was recorded.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, we are currently reviewing our rules and procedures. Yes, all of these technical things that are being spoke to are being reviewed by the law department will be brought back to this body for a full public hearing with the community. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank
you very much for me not you know,
as we're in discussion about this last part of this case,
regardless of how we vote, if we vote to approve this, I just want to encourage the petitioner to be a good neighbor, and so I don't know, you know they've said that they're, You know, different things about your reputation with other properties. I don't know. I didn't move that up, but you know, if you need to hire security, hire it, whatever you need to do to be a good neighbor in terms of continuous engagement with this community, making sure that the concerns are adhered to, at least listen to, will be very important, because you don't know when you may have to come back before this board. So we will certainly be watching,
watching that. Thank you. Except the motion for Roberts,
I make a motion, easy, easy a case 34 dash 23 refer to building seven a and 7b located at 501 511, 519, 525-520-9535, by 45 by 55 and 561 East Bay through that we approve the requested variances for front side and rear yard, setback and sufficient recreational space, Having met the approval criteria of 54 dash 121 second, approval.
Second, move for proper second,
any questions all in favor indicate by sitting aye, any nays,
ayes have it? BC,
eight, bZA, case, 34 dash, 23 Ronald McDonald requesting dimensional vanishes for the development of two buildings, seven a and 7b for multiple family units has been approved. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
thank you. Okay at this point in time, any public comment, any public comment, any public comment,
Public Comment.
Any public comment.
Warwick, you have one minute.
One minute. Okay, well, I have other photos of light that I didn't get an opportunity to turn in in the hearing. Here's like a whole mowed over sheet of glass. These are cut up plastic cups, bottles. Some of this stuff flows into my yard. The people, the Spanish speakers, they hired from Southwest Detroit, called the police on me. Probably told bad stories about me that weren't true. They assaulted me by driving their machines close to me, and it's just most unfortunate also, let me be clear about the community engagement. The Community Engagement they allegedly had about their changes, was July 4, 2024 I was not invited to that meeting. So for people to say, Oh, I didn't show up, I kind of need to know about it first to be able to show up. Now also, this is the seven core values of the city of Detroit, one of them is integrity and ethics. We work to build trust with the public and be transparent in all we do. I don't think the BZ has been transparent about how the petitioner got their documents when we were given such a hard time about giving the documents that we needed to see to be able to make meaningful public comment. Thank you. It says we operate out of integrity. And here to the ethics ordinance, city employees must adhere to the standard voting public Oh, I'm sorry. Was that one minute? Okay? My apologies, absolutely that you the other stuff. You didn't have a right to
anybody else in the auditorium. I
I'll make this quick one. I don't think you guys pay director rip Ron enough. I don't know how much he makes, but I can tell you the work I've created for him alone is like a lot, and I imagine it's a really difficult job to do, and I think on record that needs to be acknowledged, like we're a mess, like you've seen us kind of in action in this room, right? Like Mr. Rebren has to deal with us outside of this room. And I want to apologize, because it I didn't fully understand what the role of the director was for the past year, and I did not realize how difficult I have been making this man's life. And I am so sorry to I just there's two approval criteria. There's the one big 150, what is it? 50? Dash one, dash 141, and then there's the second one, which is the specific intent of the zoning ordinance. And that's like a 15 point criteria. Those are the two things that every member on this board should read and go through, like 50, dash one, dash one, dash four, whichever one it is that first one to a within that specifically refers to the second list. That list is the scope of your role, and you are to broaden it, to consider congestion, air, light. Don't let the highly paid attorneys from the suburbs narrow your responsibilities. You're all public servants here, and we need you guys. Thank you. Thank you.
One. Quincy Jones,
Mr. Jones, unmute yourself and you have a one minute for public comment.
This is Quincy Jones from four or five Chaplain Street. Once again, I'm just in full support of this project, and thank his board for all of your hard work and your commitment to review this project. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Anybody else on any other comment? Okay, we'll close out public comment. Then any new business directory,
no new business next hearing is the 18th
any old Business Director,
no business
entertain a motion to adjourn.
Motion to adjourn.
I second seconded
all those in favor, aye, our adjourned. Thank you. There's food you
